Video
Forum Admin
An op's rights activist
Posts: 5,585
| Likes: 5,893
IGN: VideoGameSmash12, videogamesm12
Old IGN: https://namemc.com/profile/VideoGameSmash12.2, https://namemc.com/profile/videogamesm12.1
Discord: Video#9801
Birthdate (MM/DD): 07/16
Timezone: UTC-07:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Video on Jan 3, 2020 23:28:52 GMT
IntroductionThis suggestion calls for a much-needed complete rewrite of the Conduct Policy. Why should this suggestion be implemented?
The current version of the Conduct Policy is flawed. Here are some of those flaws: - It's too easy to get around with the use of loopholes.
- It's too easy to get away with intentionally violating it as an administrator.
- It's too restrictive.
- There isn't a clear example of which punishments are warranted for which offense, instead they are categorized in broad categories which are way too vague.
- It's too long. The current Conduct Policy is about 8 pages long, which is way too much for a server whose purpose is to offer as much freedom as possible.
- It's filled with poor grammar.
What is your vision for this suggestion's implementation?My vision of this suggestion's implementation would be like this: - The outright prevention of the use of loopholes to get around the rules. The use of loopholes to get around a rule would still count as a violation of it.
This would solve the problem where it's too easy to get around the rules by using loopholes.
- Everything is specific and exact, but still simple and easy to read.
This would solve the problems where the Conduct Policy is too vague and too long.
- The policy is written with giving as much freedom to the operators as possible in mind.
This would help solve the problem where the Conduct Policy is too restrictive.
- Punishments are more severe based on the rank the offender has.
This would help crack down on the amount of admins violating the Conduct Policy (and getting away with it). Who would be in charge of implementing this suggestion?Everyone. Players of all ranks would be allowed to suggest changes to it during the rewrite process. - This would provide as much transparency as possible.
- This would ensure that everyone has a voice, regardless of their rank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 0:07:43 GMT
Vouch, and I think /rules also needs to be updated
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 4, 2020 0:29:38 GMT
I don't understand your goal. You mention that loopholes currently exist in the conduct policy despite it being this long, yet want to make it significantly shorter but also more specific with less loopholes. I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy going by that, if anything when you look at the conduct policy right now you can completely understand 99% of the rules (with the exception of the rule 3q, I have no clue when that rule was added, I don't remember ever seeing it there before, but it certainly does not belong on this server).
While I love the idea of going over the rules with transparency, freedom, and different ranks in mind, I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy with all of your stated goals, it seems contradictory. What we should certainly do is see about modifying the rules based on transparency, freedom, and ranks, but I don't know how we can minimize our rules without actually going against your goal of having less loopholes. If a conduct policy this large has too much unspecific information and loopholes, I'd hate to see the conduct policy with all specifics.
|
|
Panther
Veteran Member
Posts: 721
| Likes: 604
|
Post by Panther on Jan 4, 2020 0:39:23 GMT
I don't understand your goal. You mention that loopholes currently exist in the conduct policy despite it being this long, yet want to make it significantly shorter but also more specific with less loopholes. I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy going by that, if anything when you look at the conduct policy right now you can completely understand 99% of the rules (with the exception of the rule 3q, I have no clue when that rule was added, I don't remember ever seeing it there before, but it certainly does not belong on this server). While I love the idea of going over the rules with transparency, freedom, and different ranks in mind, I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy with all of your stated goals, it seems contradictory. What we should certainly do is see about modifying the rules based on transparency, freedom, and ranks, but I don't know how we can minimize our rules without actually going against your goal of having less loopholes. If a conduct policy this large has too much unspecific information and loopholes, I'd hate to see the conduct policy with all specifics. We'd end up with a smaller conduct policy because the current conduct policy is just a heavily edited version of an an ancient conduct policy that doesn't apply to what TotalFreedom is now. It's about time we just start from scratch in order to write a conduct policy from start to end with the TotalFreedom of today in mind rather than the TotalFreedom of 2013. A big reason a lot of the loopholes in the current conduct policy exist is because it was made to address the issues of the old TF rather than today's issues. Also, if we just keep building on the basis of the old conduct policy, it becomes a lot harder to abolish admin misconduct because we end up removing the problems one by one instead of just starting over and fixing it all at once. I vouch, also.
|
|
mattlawn
Veteran Member
back
Posts: 1,488
| Likes: 490
|
Post by mattlawn on Jan 4, 2020 0:41:09 GMT
it needs to be shorter
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jan 4, 2020 0:46:47 GMT
I don't understand your goal. You mention that loopholes currently exist in the conduct policy despite it being this long, yet want to make it significantly shorter but also more specific with less loopholes. I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy going by that, if anything when you look at the conduct policy right now you can completely understand 99% of the rules (with the exception of the rule 3q, I have no clue when that rule was added, I don't remember ever seeing it there before, but it certainly does not belong on this server). While I love the idea of going over the rules with transparency, freedom, and different ranks in mind, I have no clue how we would end up with a smaller conduct policy with all of your stated goals, it seems contradictory. What we should certainly do is see about modifying the rules based on transparency, freedom, and ranks, but I don't know how we can minimize our rules without actually going against your goal of having less loopholes. If a conduct policy this large has too much unspecific information and loopholes, I'd hate to see the conduct policy with all specifics. We'd end up with a smaller conduct policy because the current conduct policy is just a heavily edited version of an an ancient conduct policy that doesn't apply to what TotalFreedom is now. It's about time we just start from scratch in order to write a conduct policy from start to end with the TotalFreedom of today in mind rather than the TotalFreedom of 2013. A big reason a lot of the loopholes in the current conduct policy exist is because it was made to address the issues of the old TF rather than today's issues. Also, if we just keep building on the basis of the old conduct policy, it becomes a lot harder to abolish admin misconduct because we end up removing the problems one by one instead of just starting over and fixing it all at once. I vouch, also. You also have to keep in mind that the flesh of the server hasn't changed much since 2013. Read the conduct policy as it is now; I can guarantee you that the vast majority of it is still just as relevant. A system for admin misconduct doesn't exist alongside the conduct policy because Mark left that up to senior admins to justify suspending admins, now that is actually something we would want today but I don't know how that would be achieved by rewriting the conduct policy, that would be a separate system which determines what happens to admins when they violate the regular rules unless you want to be able to open up permban requests for admins. Yes, we created most of our rules years ago, that does not inherently mean they are not relevant. Therefore, you would be keeping most of the rules in place, but if you want to end loopholes & unspecific information then you would end up with a larger conduct policy than we have now because you are adding more details to the vast majority of rules we already have in place. It is mathematically impossible for all of your combined goals to lead to a small conduct policy, I'm sorry, but facts are facts.
|
|
97
Veteran Member
RIP Telnet
Posts: 889
| Likes: 679
|
Post by 97 on Jan 4, 2020 5:03:27 GMT
Can we remove most of the section explaining what OPs can do to make it shorter?
|
|
|
Post by Captainclimber on Jan 4, 2020 10:06:55 GMT
Vouch
If we can come up with a shorter/better conduct policy, I don't see why not implement it. I agree that the current conduct policy is too long along with the other problems listed above.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jan 4, 2020 10:25:19 GMT
The issue I have with this is that I agree the conduct policy is very convoluted, but it's convoluted for a reason: it has faced years of amendments from forum suggestions and OPs doing stupid things to get to its current state. If you rewrite it, you start the process from 0 again. I would compare it to the reason lawyerspeak exists instead of them using "normal" words.
|
|
Premintex
Club 4000 Member
Coward
Posts: 5,408
| Likes: 2,485
|
Post by Premintex on Jan 4, 2020 10:35:42 GMT
To prevent any loopholes, you can just add this one rule/note: Use common sense. A rule does not have to be written/specified in order to be enforced if seen necessary by admins. You must understand what is wrong and what isn't even if the rules don't cover it. If you're unsure about doing something that isn't in the rules, ask an admin. This can apply to all non written/non specified/non well written and all of the similar rules
I have this rule on every single one of my communities, and it has helped me alot. This rule can eliminate pretty much all loopholes
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jan 4, 2020 10:49:38 GMT
To prevent any loopholes, you can just add this one rule/note: Use common sense. A rule does not have to be written/specified in order to be enforced if seen necessary by admins. You must understand what is wrong and what isn't even if the rules don't cover it. If you're unsure about doing something that isn't in the rules, ask an admin. This can apply to all non written/non specified/non well written and all of the similar rules I have this rule on every single one of my communities, and it has helped me alot. This rule can eliminate pretty much all loopholes I always dislike seeing that rule because staff always seem to use it to justify random things they just made up. Of course, we have Seniors to prevent that, but it does allow different staff members to punish for different things, which we have always fought against: that is another reason the conduct policy is so detailed.
|
|
Mike
Veteran Member
Hi! :)
Posts: 3,603
| Likes: 2,634
|
Post by Mike on Jan 4, 2020 15:50:05 GMT
Could we make a summary of the conduct policy instead?
|
|
Luke
Veteran Member
Go home to your family, Neo
Posts: 1,124
|
Post by Luke on Jan 4, 2020 16:15:31 GMT
To prevent any loopholes, you can just add this one rule/note: Use common sense. A rule does not have to be written/specified in order to be enforced if seen necessary by admins. You must understand what is wrong and what isn't even if the rules don't cover it. If you're unsure about doing something that isn't in the rules, ask an admin. This can apply to all non written/non specified/non well written and all of the similar rules I have this rule on every single one of my communities, and it has helped me alot. This rule can eliminate pretty much all loopholes but it does allow different staff members to punish for different things, which we have always fought against: that is another reason the conduct policy is so detailed. there are some rules in the policy that do this, you do realise that right? An example is Section 1a. Obvious attempts to crash the server, as I could request a permban on someone for this yet another admin may think it was a mistake, meaning the user in question may been punished differently to the way the other admin would have done it Another example is 1j, and we have recently had a case where this has happened, with the "ragequit" section - who decides what is ragequitting or not? What if there is disagreement? A final example is as what i think may not be serious could differ from what another admin thinks is, and thus they would be punished differently my point here is that this issue already exists and this suggestion may help to stop that
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Jan 4, 2020 16:22:00 GMT
but it does allow different staff members to punish for different things, which we have always fought against: that is another reason the conduct policy is so detailed. there are some rules in the policy that do this, you do realise that right? An example is Section 1a. Obvious attempts to crash the server, as I could request a permban on someone for this yet another admin may think it was a mistake, meaning the user in question may been punished differently to the way the other admin would have done it Another example is 1j, and we have recently had a case where this has happened, with the "ragequit" section - who decides what is ragequitting or not? What if there is disagreement? A final example is as what i think may not be serious could differ from what another admin thinks is, and thus they would be punished differently my point here is that this issue already exists and this suggestion may help to stop that The permban request procedure is there to establish consensus for each case. My point is not that it is impossible to have differences between admins, but that they are not intended: a "common sense" rule would pretty much give admins free reign.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jan 4, 2020 20:11:26 GMT
Could we make a summary of the conduct policy instead? I'd suggest not. It tends to lead to more confusion around things, and when the policies don't overlap properly leads to all sorts of chaos. I personally would support simplifying the conduct policy... The current one is so long I wouldn't read it at this point anyway, and I'd imagine most players don't actually read it and most admins probably just enforce their own version of it based on what they've been taught because it's so much to read and understand... It doesn't need to be more than 10 or 15 bullet points with short sentences and maybe some examples.
|
|